warhammer40kfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:RegisteredContributor
Welcome Hi, welcome to Warhammer 40k! Thanks for your edit to the Zephro Carnelian page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Blade bane (Talk) 22:03, January 19, 2010 Re:Welcome Your welcome! It is good to see a new user who wishes to positively contribute to our articles. Keep it up, it is a welcome change of pace as opposed to the vandals that can be found every few days. Thanks for helping out! Blade bane How long has the book been out for? When it reaches the status of being out for 2 weeks, then it would be safe to add it. Blade bane Imperium of Man unlocked for your editing, please keep me apprised of all future changes you wish to amke to protected pages. Montonius 18:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC) Magnus Edit the page as you see fit, unlocked. Montonius 22:42, July 17, 2010 (UTC) Your Points M'kar and Magnus pages open for your edit. Inform me when finished. As to the Emperor's page, I will do the full revision of it personally at some point in the future; as you rightly point out it needs a complete workover, but it is not top priority right now as I rebuild the wiki's Space Marine Chapters list. As to your points concerning the Astronomican and psyker conflicts, there actually is a conflict in the canon information there that has not ever been fixed by GW. As such, the ambiguity on the page is intentional and will be left in place on the Wiki until such time as the designers come down on one side or the other. The Star Child storyline was created for the Second Edition and later dropped, but not repudiated by GW, so the information, again, deliberately conflicts. As to Kor Phaeron, leave him be until we get the full story and then remind me and you can lay out the full summary of the story. The Word Bearers and Lorgar pages and several other links to it already explain that the Word Bearers were the first to be corrupted and Kor Phaeron brought Lorgar to the worship of the Chaos Gods. Montonius 17:21, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Canon Conflict RC, please do NOT place notes about such things as canon conflict in the way you did on the M'kar page. The way to do it is to create a normal section called "Canon Conflict" just above the "Sources" section on a page. The problem with the method you chose is that it destroys the visual harmony of the page and distracts the reader. Montonius 21:41, July 21, 2010 (UTC) Magnus RC, please do not ever REMOVE information from a page. Your Magnus edits are fine but please restore all the information you removed to their previous sections, including the fact that Tizca was called the City of Light and so on. Montonius 21:45, July 21, 2010 (UTC) New Pages RC, please do not create more new pages until you have completed the others you have created, i.e. the Czevak page. If that is not completed in the next few days I will be forced to step in and reduce the article down to something complete. Thanks.Montonius 16:28, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Atlas Infernal Hey RC, you can do a page on the Atlas Infernal novel if you wish but please keep it SHORT and do not add repetitive informtion that is already present on the other pages on the topic you have already done. Absolutely wonderful work on your pages, by the way, keep it up. Montonius 17:55, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :OK, I'll start on it in the next few days. BTW, feel free to edit away anything that is duplicated and to summarize details where you see fit.RegisteredContributor 22:40, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :RC, I shouldn't have to do that. Do NOT duplicate the articles you have already done. If that is your intent, then don't bother with it. Talk about the novel's plot using a SHORT synopsis. Otherwise, the page is a waste of your time, as I will probably delete most of it. Thanks. Montonius 07:14, December 17, 2011 (UTC) Jaq Draco While I understand what you were trying to do, RC, please do not ever add ambiguity to a wiki page by removing information. The wiki is about providing facts, not continuing confusing in-universe fiction. I have incorporated what you were trying to do in a more appropriate way, and it should serve as a model for future pages of this kind. Thanks. Montonius 00:22, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Jaq Draco The Jaq Draco page is complete. Please move on to other topics, as any further edits beyond repairing typos would now be counter-productive. Thanks. Montonius 07:40, December 23, 2011 (UTC) Ahriman Please stop altering the timelines I have put into place on the Ahriman page. There is no way to reconcile the timeline of Czevak and Ahriman; Czevak's story is placed within a timeline that is no longer truly "canon." The 13th Black Crusade took place in 999.M41, there is no source that pushes it into the 42nd Millennium at the present time, and its timeline does take precedence over the Czevak storyline, which is of far less importance in the Warhammer 40k chronology. Please restore the timeline I had put into place, and in the future, do not alter edits I make to timelines unless you have first discussed the issue with me. Thank you. Montonius 20:55, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :You are reading this wrong. The 13th Black Crusade has not ended - it is presently a war of fixed positions like the trench warfare of WW I, centered around Cadia. A year or 300 from now a breakthrough may happen, and it is still going to be part of the same campaign. The Dawn of War Trilogy, which has a prologue at M38 but starts at 999.M41, makes NO mention of the 13th Black Crusade, but the Atlas Infernal explicitly refers to it. Both the DOW and the Atlas explicitly mention the Webway breach at Etiamnium III. The events in the last book of the DOW Trilogy (Tempest) which has the references to Etiamnum III happen a) sometime after 999.M41 and b) sometime after Ahriman's breach of the portal at Etiamnum which was caused by Czevak c) provide a link to Blood Ravens in both instances, and make the references of Ahriman regarding the Blood Ravens past and their (un)-founding more understandable.RegisteredContributor 21:59, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not reading it wrong; the 13th Black Crusade background book specifically places the end of the Crusade in 999.M41; the ongoing operations within the Cadian Sector due to the Chaos forces bottled up on Cadia are not considered an official continuation of the Crusade; additionally, there is no published source set in a specific date after 999.M41 for a very simple reason: Games Workshop had made clear that they will not be formally moving the timeline past 999.M41 at this time because they want to explore the past, particularly the Horus Heresy era, and this has been official policy more or less since 2004 when the Eye of Terror worldwide campaign came to an end in a draw for both sides. There are multiple date discontinuities within the Warhammer 40k canon because of this, and I recognise that fact; however, until we get an official set of events indicating with specific dates that the timeline has advanced past 999.M41, no work on this wiki will be placed in the 42nd Millennium; to do otherwise is either speculation or an attempt to create agreement where the source material itself is in obvious contradiction or remains deliberately ambiguous. With Czevak it is unavoidable because the novel clearly sets it into the 42nd Millennium even though this conflicts with other sources and itself may ultimately be retconned. However, no specific dates are given for a reason in much of this material, and we will also preserve that ambiguity. The Dawn of War games and books have always left the date largely ambiguous and we will treat it as such. Also, the Blood Ravens' origins issue has no bearing on this matter, and is itself only still speculation, no matter how much they have sought to telegraph the ultimate reveal. Until they do so, the Blood Ravens' connections to the Thousand Sons remain only speculation. So with all due respect, and with great gratitude for all of your excellent contributions, please leave the dates as they are, or leave them ambiguous. Thanks. Montonius 02:33, January 6, 2012 (UTC) ::OK, but then many storylines don't make sense, I can right off the top of my head think of the Ciaphas Cain series where M42 is clearly mentioned in the chronology of events both by Cain and by Vail, the Inquisitor. That's only one example. I'm sure careful reading of others will reveal more explicit refs to M42. Maybe the GW editors didn't get that memo. RegisteredContributor 18:10, January 6, 2012 (UTC) ::They got the memo; many of those stories (though not all) were written before 2004 when the decision was made. However, try and find a specific date in M42 with the year attached; you won't find it in any published product. The ambiguity is intentional and yes, it does not make sense; these physical dating problems are very common in Warhammer 40k. Just take a look at the old chronology of the Horus Heresy before the novel series were published; the dates were shifted forward by over 200 years. I wish it was more consistent; I'm sure you wish it were more consistent, but we cannot be tempted into trying to force a consistency upon the universe that is not yet provided by Games Workship itself. Thanks.Montonius 22:23, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Horus Heresy Thanks for your ideas, but that would all be considered informed speculation, though I must say I agree with almost all of it. But that is beyond the scope of this project and the article will remain as is. But I appreciate your effort, as you provide a constant source of ideas which improve this wiki. Montonius 04:42, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Character Infoboxes While I applaud your attempt to create a character infobox, here's the deal. Due to issues of consistency across the wiki, if you want to create a character infobox that is fine, but then I need you to create one for every single character on the wiki. In the absence of this, I need you to please remove the character infobox from the Czevak page. Thanks. Montonius 23:34, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier, I see you did it. OK, will keep this in mind. BTW, I've also created a Template:Infobox Primarch (I did not add it on any pages). I'm working on an "Infobox: Regiment" and "Infobox: Spacecraft" (will probably make this last one similar to the ship infoboxes in some of the GW Rulebooks). RegisteredContributor 15:59, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :Other ideas (also from GW codexes, rulebooks etc: "Infobox: Weapon" ??? RegisteredContributor 16:07, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, I thought more about the matter. I don't want any more info boxes on the wiki beyond where we already use them. They are difficult to maintain, greatly add to the burden of our still very limited pool of editors, have to be implemented on every relevant page across the wiki when used, and are a real bitch to deal with when making wiki-wide coding changes as I discovered when I gave the wiki its face-lift and the infoboxes prevented me from making certain changes without deleting them outright and remaking them. Just place the information in the relevant section of the page's text. We'll continue to use the existing ones for new pages created in those categories, but for now that's it. As the wiki grows and we gain more reliable editors who can be trusted to maintain and implement new infoboxes across every relevant page, I'll be happy to revisit the issue. Thanks. Montonius 04:54, January 15, 2012 (UTC) Salamanders RC, do not EVER alter the basic formatting of a flagship page of this wiki. If you have more information to add, do so using the existing headings or create a new one. Our Space Marine pages work because every one possesses the exact same formatting. As I have explained before, consistency is what makes a wiki work. Please keep this in mind in the future. I have incorporated your changes in a more appropriate manner into the page. Montonius 06:06, February 1, 2012 (UTC)